JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner learned Public Prosecutor and perused the original record of the case as well as the petition. 2. This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer that the proceedings pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Rajsamand in Criminal Case No. 10/ 1991 be quashed on the ground of delay. It is alleged that in the instant case the delay has been resulted in contravention of the petitioner's right under Article 21 of the Constitution. 3. 1 have perused the record of the case. It appears that the challan was filed on 22nd August, 1980, thereafter the case was listed on 3rd September, 1980 for the proceedings. On 3rd September, 1980 the accused persons furnished surety and case was listed on 18th December, 1990 and on several other dates the learned Counsel for the accused wanted time for arguments on charge. On 15th December, 1984 the case was transferred to the Court of learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Kumbhalgarh. The charges against the accused were framed on 31st January, 1987. Thereafter the case was listed for recording the evidence of prosecution. On 18th November, 1988 it was reported that co-accused Bhanwar Lal had expired but the verification of his death could not be ascertained and several dates were taken for verifying that Bhanwar Lal had actually expired or not. On 10th April, 1991 the case was transferred to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand. The case was, therefore, fixed on several dates for the purpose of prosecution evidence. 4. In this case seven prosecution witnesses have already been examined, some more witnesses are to be examined, the charges on which the petitioner is facing trial are punishable under Sections 408 and 477, IPC. 5. In cases where the accused persons are themselves responsible for the delay it cannot be said that the prosecution alone is responsible for the delay in the disposal of the case. It is well established that no one can reap the advantages of his own harm. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case there does not appear to be any violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. The petition, therefore, has no force, it deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage. 7. It is well established that no one can reap the advantages of his own harm. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case there does not appear to be any violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. The petition, therefore, has no force, it deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage. 7. However, the fact that the case is pending since 1980 is sufficient to draw the attention of this Court under Section 483, Cr.P.C. In order the case need not be further delayed it is hereby directed that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in whose Court the case is pending shall fix a date for hearing and issue summons to all the remaining prosecution witnesses. The notice of the date of hearing shall be given to the accused and to the prosecution both and the case shall be heard on day-to-day basis. No further adjournment shall be granted either to the prosecution or to the accused unless the adjournment becomes inevitable within the meaning of Section 309, Cr.P.C. Mere fact that the prosecution or accused find it inconvenient to take part in the hearing on the dates fixed by the Court would not be a sufficient cause for granting adjournment. Section 309(1) will be strictly followed and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate will take all lawful steps for the early disposal of the caseWith the above direction this petition is dismissed at the admission stage. A copy of this order be sent to the learned lower Court for necessary action and information.Petition dismissed. *******